USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jennifer Jordan McCall, Jennifer Altman and Christine Tsai, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
uous, and a creative attorney was able to win the liti - gation thinking “big picture” to find that the outcome desired by the opponents was likely unconstitutional as an unlawful taking in violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution, as well as under the governing State Constitution. Cases regarding tax issues should not be avoided, as they can provide key leverage to obtain a desired outcome. The sympathetic client It is important to identify the aspects of a client’s posi - tion that are appealing to the average person, and therefore likely to influence the Court. Determine this by evaluating the legitimacy of their goal. Where, for example, a client has been victimised by the unrea - sonable behaviour of the opposing party, this should be persuasive because it is a wrong that needs to be corrected. On the other hand, if a potential cli - ent appears to be unreasonable, overly aggressive or untruthful, it is not likely to win the sympathy of the Court. Diplomacy, respect and patience Given that the dispute resolution process is inherently stressful and contentious, it is understandable that all parties may be vulnerable to anger. To combat this (as anger can escalate and block resolution), remember that the opposing attorneys are likely to be intelligent and to have some valid points. As much as we want to “win”, being sensitive to their clients’ vulnerabilities and goals increases our chance of settlement. It is crucial to avoid ancillary debates, such as whether the other attorney has been offensive or irritating. Instead, aligning oneself as their reasonable ally in reaching a settlement is a good approach. We are all human. It is important to take a deep breath and try to resolve conflicts that may arise during the settlement process or when discussing the case in the hallway after a court hearing. Naturally, the best foundation for a win is detailed study of the law and the calculations, but respect for the other attorneys, diplomacy and patience are key ingredients to a successful outcome. Moreover, the Judge and the court are likely to observe all reasonable behaviour, which will incentivise them to work to achieve a fair settlement.
Recent examples of high net worth litigation tech- niques and dispute resolution Family disputes In Florida, there have been several disputes involving family assets, including Florida homestead property, in the past year. For example, in Fuentes v Link, 394 So. 3d 684 (3d DCA 2024) , the court upheld that a homestead prop - erty transferred to a revocable trust for the benefit of the decedent’s surviving spouse was not part of the estate, rejecting the daughter’s claim that the trust was an invalid conveyance as there was no material issue regarding the decedent’s intent or the trust’s delivery. In Leitner v Leitner, 391 So. 3d 1023 (5th DCA 202 4), the court found that summary judgment was inappropriate due to factual issues suggesting poten - tial undue influence by one son after the decedent executed a will favouring the other. Evidence such as a sudden change in disposition and the son’s role in the transaction raised a presumption of undue influ - ence. And in Johnson v Johnson, 50 Fla. L. Weekly d1021 (1st DCA 2025) , the court allowed the refor - mation of two mistakenly drafted deeds, allowing the grandchildren to receive property intended for them by their grandparents. The court found sufficient evi - dence of mutual mistake and intent to justify reforma - tion of the deeds. Similarly, in Carmel v Fleischer, 391 So. 3d 907 (4th DCA 2024) , the decedent’s son objected to the admin - istration of the decedent’s estate and claimed that his brother had undue influence over the decedent’s will provisions. When the personal representative sough to close the estate, the son filed objections, includ - ing mismanagement by the personal representative. The representative moved to strike the son’s claims by stating that the son was not an “interested person” in the estate because he was only a trust beneficiary, rather than a direct beneficiary of the estate. The court disagreed with this, and ruled that the son was an “interested person” in the decedent’s estate because he was a beneficiary of the testamentary trust, and would reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
645 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook